Page 28 of 35 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 347

Thread: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

  1. #271
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    No.. he clearly states the opposite: "the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation," arguing that sex and sexual orientation are "necessarily interrelated" but that sexual orientation discrimination is distinct (though related) to sex discrimination.
    And I disagree.

  2. #272
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    Marriage is a civil right. The courts defined it as such 40 years ago.
    States do not grant rights No court can change that.
    Marriage would not exist if the states did not create it. No court can change that.
    Marriage would cease to exist if the states repeal their relevant laws. No court can change that.
    States do not have to have laws that create marriage. No court can change that.
    Thus, marriage is a privilege granted by the state. No court can change that.

    Anthropologically, marriage belongs as much to the market and religion as the state.
    Irelevant; the isssu is marriage as a legal institutuon, and the desire for homosexuals to have their union legally recognized as such. This necessitates the creation of the institution of marriage by the state, and that -necessarily- makes marriage a privilege, not a right.

  3. #273
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    No.. he clearly states the opposite: "the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation," arguing that sex and sexual orientation are "necessarily interrelated" but that sexual orientation discrimination is distinct (though related) to sex discrimination.
    And I disagree. Were it not for the issue of gender, there would be no issue of sexual orientation.

  4. #274
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    You can marry a woman and I cannot. That is not equal.
    Both of us can marry someone of the opposite gender; neither of us can marry someone of the same gender. That's equal.

  5. #275
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Both of us can marry someone of the opposite gender; neither of you can marry someone of the same gender. That's equal.
    You can marry a woman and I cannot. That is not equal.

  6. #276
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,595

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    And I disagree.
    You may disagree with the judge, but it IS what the judge said.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  7. #277
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    You can marry a woman and I cannot. That is not equal.
    It doesnt matter how many times your petulance forces you post this - the fact is that everyone suffers the same restrictions and enjoys the same privileges under the law, and thus, there is no disctimination.

  8. #278
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    States do not grant rights No court can change that.
    Marriage would not exist if the states did not create it. No court can change that.
    Marriage would cease to exist if the states repeal their relevant laws. No court can change that.
    States do not have to have laws that create marriage. No court can change that.
    Thus, marriage is a privilege granted by the state. No court can change that.
    The U.S. Constitution gives the courts the authority to interpret which actions are rights. So courts can change that.

    Irelevant; the isssu is marriage as a legal institutuon, and the desire for homosexuals to have their union legally recognized as such. This necessitates the creation of the institution of marriage by the state, and that -necessarily- makes marriage a privilege, not a right.
    Marriage began as a private contract between families, with the male taking the economic burden of an unemployable female in exchange for the dowry and the opportunity to father legitimate heirs and assistants for his estates. It therefore falls into all the rights entailing business and privacy. The state perceived a use for it and incorporated into its plans. Marriage's status as a private contract is ascendant over the state's uses for it.

    Marriage originates from outside the state, the state subsumes it into its policies.

    In the United States, policy must be equitable. This brings us back to civil rights, and marriage being one of them.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 09-09-10 at 03:40 PM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  9. #279
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:49 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,595

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    That's all it IS about. There is no other issue.


    Because the gender discrimination affects them most. It doesn't affect heterosexuals.


    I don't know. What is your point.



    Those millions are wrong. They don't ask you your sexual orientation when you apply for a marriage license.

    They do ask your gender, though.


    For ALL. They just focus on sexualilty because it affects homo and bisexuals.


    Yes, I know, I read his words. And he mentions gender quite a bit. I see it in black and white, in his own words. Hence my pointing to his ruling.


    Not talking about the existence of gender, but the existence of gender as the core issue. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to marriage. Always has been. It's not even in question. They don't ask what your sexual orientation is. They ask your GENDER, or sex if you will. I don't see how much clearer that could be.

    But because there is blatant sex discrimination, and only homosexuals and bisexuals are adversely affected by it, then it does turn into a a discrimination of homo and bi-sexuals. But a discrimination based on sex.


    Yes, it is.


    No, it is not. You can marry a woman, and I cannot. That is not equal.


    Because it violated equal protection.


    It has to do with changing the current definition.


    Yes. The ban is based on gender/sex and gender/sex alone. Revoking that ban due to it's blatant discrimination based on sex is the only argument and the only recourse.
    Riv, I see an awful lot of "because I said so" here, and you're arguing a position few take. You may disagree with the positions they do take, but they take them nonetheless. The judge ruled on discrimination against sexual orientation. He did.

    Look, it's certainly fine to disagree with the prevailing winds, and it's certainly fine to make your own novel argument. But this notion of yours that not only is your argument the only possible one, and thus, everyone who is for same-sex marriage must hold that position, is just plain baffling and not what I have come to expect from you.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #280
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    The U.S. Constitution gives the courts the authority to interpret which actions are rights. So courts can change that.
    If a state does not create the legal institution of marriage, then it doesnt exist. This necessarily precludes the notion of marriage being a right, as rights are not created or granted by states.
    If you were right, then a state could not repeal its marriage laws, eliminating the institution of marriage; that states can do this any time they want proves that you are wrong.

    Marriage began as a private contract between families, with the male taking the economic burden of an unemployable female in exchange for the dowry and the opportunity to father legitimate heirs and assistants for his estates. It therefore falls into all the rights entailing business and privacy. The state perceived a use for it and incorporated into its plans. Marriage's status as a private contract is ascendant over the state's uses for it.
    None of this changes or reduces anythnig I said - the issue is marriage as a legal institution as defined and recognized by the state.

Page 28 of 35 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •